01 Jan 16
Originally posted by joe shmoLook up Kahler manifolds on Wikipedia. They tend to be more rigid than ordinary manifolds (that is spaces which locally "look" like n-dimensional Euclidean or Lorentz spaces).
Yes, a time vector in a (at least) 2D complex plane containing infinite time continuum's ( time paths,lines,points...however you want to look at it.) The vector consists of a Real component for all (V<c), and an Imaginary component for all (V>=c). It doesn't seem like reverse causality would be an issue in this form of time travel (time travel between p ...[text shortened]... conceiving of such a notion in theory as I have said, or in application as sonhouse has implied.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
01 Jan 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI skimmed it, glad you think I can comprehend that subject. It's just too far displaced from my level of education to understand how it might apply to answer my question. I was looking for some layman's explanation on why or how what I stated may or may not be correct/plausible. I assume you were trying to point me in a direction of study that attempts to tackle similar theories, of "n" - dimensional spaces within spaces etc..., but I've only had one course in Linear Algebra, and no applicable physics experience at this level.
Look up Kahler manifolds on Wikipedia. They tend to be more rigid than ordinary manifolds (that is spaces which locally "look" like n-dimensional Euclidean or Lorentz spaces).
02 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by joe shmoThe Wikipedia pages on mathematics have a habit of making these things appear about twenty times harder than they actually are. Part of my reason for pointing you in that direction was because I couldn't work out what you were trying to say.
I skimmed it, glad you think I can comprehend that subject. It's just too far displaced from my level of education to understand how it might apply to answer my question. I was looking for some layman's explanation on why or how what I stated may or may not be correct/plausible. I assume you were trying to point me in a direction of study that attempts t ...[text shortened]... I've only had one course in Linear Algebra, and no applicable physics experience at this level.
One criticism, you have time as a complex coordinate, but if we have time for slower than light particles as real and imaginary for faster than light particles then what does a complex value for time represent - something going both slower and faster than light? On the other hand quantum mechanics does involve this "spooky action at a distance". Maybe your dual half sub-luminal half tachyonic description can provide a realist solution to the apparent paradox.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
02 Jan 16
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYeah, Wiki has a way of compressing a books worth of knowledge, (or several) into a few short pages,to succinctly tell you about what you are after. However, comprehending all the new terminology at once makes it difficult to digest in a head spinning passive word reading experience.
The Wikipedia pages on mathematics have a habit of making these things appear about twenty times harder than they actually are. Part of my reason for pointing you in that direction was because I couldn't work out what you were trying to say.
One criticism, you have time as a complex coordinate, but if we have time for slower than light particles as r ...[text shortened]... f sub-luminal half tachyonic description can provide a realist solution to the apparent paradox.
One criticism, you have time as a complex coordinate, but if we have time for slower than light particles as real and imaginary for faster than light particles then what does a complex value for time represent - something going both slower and faster than light? On the other hand quantum mechanics does involve this "spooky action at a distance". Maybe your dual half sub-luminal half tachyonic description can provide a realist solution to the apparent paradox.
I was trying to imply that once "c" is met or exceeded "Real Time" stops or freezes, hence "Real Speed" ceases to have a meaning. You may travel through "Imaginary Time" (a time dimension orthogonal to real time) where perhaps the Lorentz Transformation still applies, but works to extend "Imaginary Time" with increased imaginary velocity. When you accelerate below "c" Real time begins again( speeding up as you decelerate), but you are no longer in the Real time that you began, but in a Real Time parallel to it. As for the backwards time travel, its only relative to the "rest time" experienced in the the parallel real time frame you arrived in, it doesn't seem that it would be an "absolute" backwards time travel just more of an offset from the head of the time arrow of the newly arrived at frame.
Now, perhaps exceeding "c" is the difference to arriving "absolutely" backwards in time, just as acceleration to "c" in "Real time" acts to propel the traveler into the future, the Lorentz Transform gives an opposite effect (extension) when traveling above "c" in "Imaginary time". So I don't know, that's where I'm at.
Another thing to consider: How does assuming complex time in this way effect the derivation of general relativity...Maybe GR as written its not the full picture, and when accounted for backwards time travel can be accounted for in the new relationships?
03 Jan 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIsn't the usual way to resolve the paradox to note that while it is indeed quite "spooky," no "action" is being done superluminally?
The Wikipedia pages on mathematics have a habit of making these things appear about twenty times harder than they actually are. Part of my reason for pointing you in that direction was because I couldn't work out what you were trying to say.
One criticism, you have time as a complex coordinate, but if we have time for slower than light particles as r ...[text shortened]... f sub-luminal half tachyonic description can provide a realist solution to the apparent paradox.
03 Jan 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes, but the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't really make any sense - the only things that are real are measurements. In the Many Worlds Interpretation the problem doesn't exist, all that happens is that as the lab equipment gets entangled with the microscopic states the equipment and experimenters and, in principle, the entire universe goes into a linear superposition. Maybe there's some scope for this in a deBroglie-Bohm type picture.
Isn't the usual way to resolve the paradox to note that while it is indeed quite "spooky," no "action" is being done superluminally?
03 Jan 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAside from the Copenhagen interpretation, in a Bell-type experiment there is nothing "making things happen" faster than the speed of light. So causality and relativity are safe. This is a separate issue from the measurement problem, really.
Yes, but the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't really make any sense - the only things that are real are measurements. In the Many Worlds Interpretation the problem doesn't exist, all that happens is that as the lab equipment gets entangled with the microscopic states the equipment and experimenters and, in principle, the entire universe goes into a linear superposition. Maybe there's some scope for this in a deBroglie-Bohm type picture.
04 Jan 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes, but it would be nice to have a realist interpretation of quantum theory that didn't involve an infinite number of universes, or extra ontological structures (the dBB particle).
Aside from the Copenhagen interpretation, in a Bell-type experiment there is nothing "making things happen" faster than the speed of light. So causality and relativity are safe. This is a separate issue from the measurement problem, really.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
04 Jan 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell, if this is persuable, and turns out to begin the link between QM and GR it's potentially big... any chance of giving me some conceptual credit before you guys run away with my proposal?
Sure, it would be nice. I'll let you know once I figure it out.
04 Jan 16
Originally posted by joe shmoThe nice thing about the measurement problem is that it occurs also in the good ol' simple nonrelativistic quantum mechanics (the one I actually know something about), so no need for fancy stuff.
Well, if this is persuable, and turns out to begin the link between QM and GR it's potentially big... any chance of giving me some conceptual credit before you guys run away with my proposal?
05 Jan 16
Originally posted by joe shmoAll that matters for communication to make sense is that the signals we send back and forth arrive in the right order. So I send a message to you, you receive it and send a reply back to me. The sole requirement is that the reply I get back should not arrive before I send the original message. So that we don't quite agree on what the time is doesn't matter, what matters is that my consciousness sees the messages in the right order. That is what is preserved in Einstein's theory.
Maybe i'm thinking about this wrong, but how do we communicate with each other? We are all at different in slightly different points of time because of relativity, correct?
06 Jan 16
Originally posted by joe shmoIt takes time for communication to travel, and it travels slower than the speed of light - the fastest way we know how to communicate is using light.
Maybe i'm thinking about this wrong, but how do we communicate with each other? We are all at different in slightly different points of time because of relativity, correct?
What can happen is that when two observers see the same two sources of information from different points in space-time and that they disagree over which message was sent first, the so-called relativity of simultaneity.
06 Jan 16
6 edits
Originally posted by joe shmoas I understand it; only if we have relative motion and/or acceleration with each other and/or not using the same frame of reference. If we are using exactly the same frame of reference and you are not moving and/or accelerating relative to me then we should be able to agree with the same time. (please will somebody correct me here if I haven't got that exactly totally right)
... We are all at different in slightly different points of time because of relativity, correct?